In past discussions I've referred to the type of personality which observes the consequences of failing to satisfy the demands of element duality as "cautious". I am re-titling the type the "counselor", due to their frequent position as advisors to people of importance. (as opposed to the bold type, which tends to eschew advice on matters they are already knowledgeble about).

The delimma of this type is the problem of misaligned energies. This type observes reality as a matter of complementary energies which seek each other. Without awareness of their complement, energies lack direction, and so undirected are like to dillute their efforts unnecessarily. (entropy) There is a reason that quadra progression, as described by Augusta and Reinin, actually trumps entropy: so long as complementary energies are playing off of each other, they continue to have direction. Consider the couple which has good chemistry: one's mental efforts are matched by a corresponding effort, which appreciates the stimulation of the former and matches it with a corresponding stimulation. If, at an instant, a desired stimulation is not received from a partner, then immediately the mind begins to thirst after it, this so it can sustain its own respective cycle of experience. This thirst, if not quenched by a dedicated source, will seek out a multiplicity of alternatives. It's like eating fruit in leu of access to a glass of water: you may still get enough water to quench your thirst, but you've wasted a lot of time and energy on the process of acquiring the water itself. Duality, in this context, always has a glass of water at the ready for whenever it is needed, so no dispersion of energy takes place.

If one's habits are changed in pursuit of that which is needed (energy), then the misalignment of individual energies with the whole may have serious consequences. The question arises as to how to approach the pursuit of energy. Visionary (bold) types look for energy wherever it may be found -- they seek out newer and better sources of energy and spend much of their time trying to improve their use of the energy they have; if they feel their supply of energy is threatened, they are more likely to seek out a new source, on the frontier, than to defend the one they have. Counselor types are concerned more with preserving the sources they have already: they observe all the ways a person can respond negatively to dependency loss, but also observe the limitations of the negativity. Change can be good. An excellent contrast is evident in the two remaining positions on global warming: visionary types (like Al Gore) argue that we must confront the threat head on and orient our search for energy (that is, social development) around a general social confrontation with the phenomenon. Others, however, argue that we should let global warming take its course, because although we are destroying the ecosytem as we know it, a new ecosystem should (theoretically) take its place that is adaptive to human norms. It is a matter of taking bold action vs. total inaction, and illustrates the visionary vs. counselor divide. (this is, of course, not to say that counselors are completely against action at all; more on that below).

Yet action is being taken on global warming, and there are few voices opposing the action that has been taken. Why? Because the counselor does not necessarily consider the consequences of either action or inaction independently. If we take action, what could we lose? If we do not, then what will we lose then? Which is the greater loss? Should, after careful consideration, the consequences of inaction prove greater than those of inaction, the counselor may defer to the visionary on (that) matter.